G.R. No. 180165. April 7, 2009.

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner,

vs. HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M.
GONZALES, OLIVER T. YAO and DIANA T. YAO,
respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Probable

Cause; Probable Cause Defined; A finding of probable cause does not
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction; It is enough that it is believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.·Probable
cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind,
acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter
is, or may be, well founded on such a state of facts in the mind of
the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and
prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that
a thing is so. The term does not mean „actual or positive cause‰ nor
does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require
an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a
trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of
the charge.
Same; Same; Same; To determine the existence of probable
cause, there is need to conduct preliminary investigation; Purpose of
Preliminary Investigation.·To determine the existence of probable
cause, there is need to conduct preliminary investigation. A
preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of
the merits of a case. Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime
has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of
discovering which person or persons may be reasonably charged
with a crime.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

Same; Same; Same; Court may not be compelled to pass upon

the correctness of the exercise of the public prosecutorÊs function
unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or manifest
error in his findings.·The conduct of preliminary investigation is
executive in nature. The Court may not be compelled to pass upon
the correctness of the exercise of the public prosecutorÊs function
unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or
manifest error in his findings. Grave abuse of discretion implies
a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. The exercise of power must have been done
in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility. It must have been so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform
the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Same; Same; Same; The Secretary of Justice is not in a
competent position to pass judgment on substantive matters.·In the
present case, the abuse of discretion is patent in the act of the
Secretary of Justice holding that the contractual relationship forged
by the parties was a simple loan, for in so doing, the Secretary of
Justice assumed the function of the trial judge of calibrating the
evidence on record, done only after a full-blown trial on the merits.
The fact of existence or non-existence of a trust receipt transaction
is evidentiary in nature, the veracity of which can best be passed
upon after trial on the merits, for it is virtually impossible to
ascertain the real nature of the transaction involved based solely on
the self-serving allegations contained in the opposing partiesÊ
pleadings. Clearly, the Secretary of Justice is not in a competent
position to pass judgment on substantive matters. The bases of a
partyÊs accusation and defenses are better ventilated at the trial
proper than at the preliminary investigation.

Same; Same; Same; A preliminary investigation does not

require a full and exhaustive presentation of the partiesÊ evidence.·
We need not overemphasize that in a preliminary investigation, the
public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable
cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not call for the
application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of
conviction requires after trial on the merits. The complainant need
not present

633

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 633

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A preliminary

investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of
the partiesÊ evidence. Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception
of evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective claims.
Civil Law; Contracts; Trusts; Trust receipt transaction defined
in Presidential Decree No. 115.·Section 4. What constitutes a trust
receipt transaction.·A trust receipt transaction, within the
meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person
referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person
referred to in this Decree as the entrustee, whereby the entruster,
who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain
specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the
possession of the entrustee upon the latterÊs execution and delivery
to the entruster of a signed document called a „trust receipt‰
wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods,
documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or
otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the
obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the
extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the
trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if
they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the
terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other
purposes substantially equivalent to any one of the following: 1. In
the case of goods or documents, (a) to sell the goods or procure their
sale; or (b) to manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of
ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the case of goods delivered under
trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before
its ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its title over the goods
whether in its original or processed form until the entrustee has
complied fully with his obligation under the trust receipt; or (c) to
load, unload, ship or transship or otherwise deal with them in a
manner preliminary or necessary to their sale; or, 2. In the case of
instruments, a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange; or b) to
deliver them to a principal; or c) to effect the consummation of some
transactions involving delivery to a depository or register; or d) to
effect their presentation, collection or renewal. The sale of goods,
documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling
goods, documents or instruments for profit who, at the outset of the
transaction, has, as against the buyer, general property rights in
such goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same to the
buyer on credit, retaining title or

634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price,

does not constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside the
purview and coverage of this Decree.
Same; Same; Same; An entrustee is one having or taking
possession of goods, documents or instruments under a trust receipt
transaction, and any successor-in-interest of such person for the
purpose of payment in the trust receipt agreement; Obligations of an
Entrustee.·An entrustee is one having or taking possession of
goods, documents or instruments under a trust receipt transaction,
and any successor in interest of such person for the purpose of
payment specified in the trust receipt agreement. The entrustee is
obliged to (1) hold the goods, documents or instruments in trust for
the entruster and shall dispose of them strictly in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the trust receipt; (2) receive the
proceeds in trust for the entruster and turn over the same to the
entruster to the extent of the amount owed to the entruster or as
appears on the trust receipt; (3) insure the goods for their total
value against loss from fire, theft, pilferage or other casualties; (4)
keep said goods or the proceeds therefrom whether in money or
whatever form, separate and capable of identification as property of
the entruster; (5) return the goods, documents or instruments in the
event of non-sale or upon demand of the entruster; and (6) observe
all other terms and conditions of the trust receipt not contrary to
the provisions of the decree.
 Same; Same; Same; A violation of any of these undertakings
constitutes estafa defined under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised
Penal Code, as provided by Section 13 of Presidential Decree No.
115.·The entruster shall be entitled to the proceeds from the sale
of the goods, documents or instruments released under a trust
receipt to the entrustee to the extent of the amount owed to the
entruster or as appears in the trust receipt; or to the return of the
goods, documents or instruments in case of non-sale; and to the
enforcement of all other rights conferred on him in the trust receipt,
provided these are not contrary to the provisions of the document. A
violation of any of these undertakings constitutes estafa defined
under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Renal Code, as provided by
Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115.
Same; Same; Same; The offense punished under Presidential
Decree No. 115 is in the nature of malum prohibitum.·That private
respondents did not sell the goods under the trust receipt but al-

635

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 635

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

lowed it to be used by their sister company is of no moment. The

offense punished under Presidential Decree No. 115 is in the nature
of malum prohibitum. A mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the
sale or the goods, if not sold, constitutes a criminal offense that
causes prejudice not only to another, but more to the public interest.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Perez, Calima, Suratos, Maynigo & Roque Law Offices
for petitioner.
Salva, Salva and Salva for respondents.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by
petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, seeking
to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated 30 March
2007and the Resolution2 dated 16 October 2007 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91892. In its assailed
Decision and Resolution, the appellate court affirmed the
Resolution3 of the Secretary of Justice directing the City
Prosecutor of Manila to move for the withdrawal of the
Informations for Estafa filed against private respondents
Oliver T. Yao and Diana T. Yao.
The factual and procedural antecedents of this present
petition are as follows:
Petitioner is a banking institution duly authorized to
engage in the banking business under Philippine laws.

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizzaro with Associate

Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, concurring.
Rollo, pp. 61-70.
2 Id., at pp. 59-60.
3 Records, pp. 268-274.

636

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

Private respondents were the duly authorized

representatives of Visaland Inc. (Visaland), likewise a
domestic corporation engaged in the real estate
development business.
In order to finance the importation of materials
necessary for the operations of its sister company, Titan
Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation
(TICDC), private respondents, on behalf of Visaland,
applied with petitioner for 24 letters of credit, the
aggregate amount of which reached the sum of
P68,749,487.96. Simultaneous with the issuance of the
letters of credit, private respondents signed trust receipts4
in favor of petitioner. Private respondents bound
themselves to sell the goods covered by the letters of credit
and to remit the proceeds to petitioner, if sold, or to return
the goods, if not sold, on or before their agreed maturity
dates.
When the trust receipts matured, private respondents
failed to return the goods to petitioner, or to return their
value amounting to P68,749,487.96 despite demand. Thus,
petitioner filed a criminal complaint5 for estafa6 against
Visaland and private respondents with the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila (City Prosecutor).7
 In their Counter-Affidavit,8 private respondents denied
having entered into trust receipt transactions with
petitioner. Instead, private respondents claimed that the
contract entered into by the parties was a Contract of Loan
secured by a

_______________

4 Rollo, pp. 119-142. A commercial document whereby the bank

releases the goods in the possession of the entrustee but retains
ownership thereof while the entrustee shall sell the goods and apply the
proceeds for the full payment of his liability with the bank. (Villanueva,
Commercial Law Review [2004 Edition].)
5 Records, pp. 102-128.
6 Under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
7 Under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115 (Trust Receipts
Law), the failure of the entrustee to return the goods covered by the trust
receipt or the proceeds from the sale thereof shall constitute the crime of
estafa.
8 Records, 117-128.

637

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 637

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

Real Estate Mortgage over two parcels of land situated at

Tagaytay City and registered under the name of the
spouses Wilbert and Isabelita King (the spouses King).9
According to private respondents, petitioner made them
sign documents bearing fine prints without apprising them
of the real nature of the transaction involved. Private
respondents came to know of the trust receipt transaction
only after they were served a copy of the Affidavit-
Complaint of the petitioner.
After the requisite preliminary investigation, the City
Prosecutor found that no probable cause existed and
dismissed Information Sheet (I.S.) No. 02G-30918 in a
Resolution10 dated 23 January 2003. While the City
Prosecutor was not persuaded by the defense proffered by
private respondents that no trust receipt transaction
existed, it nonetheless, dismissed the case for lack of
evidence that prior demand was made by petitioner. The
City Prosecutor underscored that for a charge of estafa
with grave abuse of confidence to prosper, previous demand
is an indispensable requisite.
To prove that a demand was made prior to the
institution of the criminal complaint, petitioner attached to
its Motion for Reconsideration a copy of a letter-demand11
dated 27 February 2001, addressed to private respondents.
After the element of prior demand was satisfied, the
City Prosecutor issued a Resolution12 dated 11 October
2004 finding probable cause for estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 1(b)13 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to
Presidential

_______________

9 The records do not show how the spouses King are related to private
respondents or to Visaland.
10 Rollo, pp. 271-278.
11 Id., at pp. 186-188.
12 Id., at p. 204.
13 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
xxxx
(b)  By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another,
money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in
trust or on commission, or for administration, or under

638

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

Decree No. 115.14 Accordingly, 23 separate Informations15

for estafa were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Manila against private respondents. The cases were
docketed as Criminal Cases No. 04231721-44 and raffled to
Branch 17 of the said court.
In the interim, private respondents appealed the
investigating prosecutorÊs Resolution to the Secretary of
Justice. In a Resolution16 dated 31 March 2005, the
Secretary of Justice ruled that there was no probable cause
to prosecute private respondents for estafa in relation to
Presidential Decree No. 115. The Secretary of Justice
declared that the legitimate transactional relationship
between the parties being merely a contract of loan,
violations of the terms thereunder were not covered by
Presidential Decree No. 115. Thus, the Secretary of Justice
directed the City Prosecutor of Manila to move for the
withdrawal of the Informations. In a subsequent
Resolution17 dated 30 August 2005, the Secretary of Justice
denied petitionerÊs Motion for Reconsideration, for the
matters raised therein had already been passed upon in his
prior resolution.
Acting on the directive of the Secretary of Justice, the
City Prosecutor moved for the withdrawal of the
Informations which was granted by the RTC in an Order18
dated 29 July 2005. Consequently, Criminal Cases No. 04-
231721 to No. 04231744 were withdrawn. The RTC refused
to reconsider its earlier resolution in an Order19 dated 3
February 2006, thereby denying petitionerÊs Motion for
Reconsideration.

_______________

any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return

the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed
by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other
property.

14 Otherwise known as the Trust Receipts Law.

15 Rollo, pp. 205-252.
16 Records, pp. 268-274.
17 Id., at pp. 301-302.
18 Id., at p. 288.
19 Id., at p. 360.

639

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 639

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

From the adverse Resolutions of the Secretary of

Justice, petitioner elevated its case before the Court of
Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari,20 which was
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 91892. Petitioner averred in
its Petition that the Secretary of Justice abused his
discretion in ignoring the established facts and legal
principles when he ruled that probable cause for the crime
of estafa was absent.
The Court of Appeals, however, in its Decision21 dated 30
March 2007, dismissed petitionerÊs Petition for Certiorari
after finding that the Secretary of Justice committed no
grave abuse of discretion in ruling against the existence of
probable cause to prosecute private respondents. In
arriving at its assailed decision, the appellate court
recognized the authority of the Secretary of Justice to
control and supervise the prosecutors, which includes the
power to reverse or modify their decisions without
committing grave abuse of discretion.
Similarly ill-fated was PetitionerÊs Motion for
Reconsideration in a Resolution22 dated 16 October 2007.
Unfazed by the turn of events, petitioner now comes
before this Court urging us to reverse the Court of Appeals
Decision and Resolution and to direct the filing of
Informations against private respondents. For the
disposition of this Court is the sole issue of:

WHETHER OR NOT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE

PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FOR THE CRIME
OF ESTAFA IN RELATION TO P.D. NO. 115.

Petitioner impugns the findings of the appellate court

sustaining the non-existence of probable cause as found by
the Secretary of Justice. Petitioner insists that the
allegations in its complaint, together with the pieces of
evidence appended

_______________

20 CA Rollo, pp. 1-28.

21 Rollo, pp. 61-70.
22 Id. at pp. 59-60.

640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

thereon, are sufficient to sustain a finding of probable

cause in preliminary investigation.
Asserting their innocence, private respondents continue
to argue that the agreement contracted by parties is one of
loan, and not of trust receipt. To buttress their contention,
private respondents aver that a contract of mortgage was
executed by the spouses King to secure private
respondentsÊ loan obligation with petitioner, the proceeds of
which were the ones utilized to finance the importation of
materials.23 Private respondents likewise defend the
assailed Court of Appeals Decision and assert that the
Secretary of Justice was justified in overruling the
investigating prosecutorÊs findings, as sanctioned by
Section 12 of DOJ Department Order No. 70.24
The present petition bears impressive merits.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such
facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge
of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted. Probable cause is a
reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may
be, well founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and
prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong
suspicion, that a thing is so.25 The term does not mean
„actual or positive

_______________

23 A copy of the alleged Real Estate Mortgage, however, is not found

in the records.
24 Section 12. Disposition of the appeal.·The Secretary may reverse,
affirm or modify the resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon motion,
dismiss the petition for review on any of the following grounds:
• That the petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in
Section 3 hereof;
• That the procedure or any of the requirements herein
provided has not been complied with; x x x.
25 Yu v. Sandiganbayan, 410 Phil. 619, 627; 358 SCRA 353, 359
(2001).

641

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 641

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

cause‰ nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely

based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of
probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is
enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely,
there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the
prosecution in support of the charge.26
To determine the existence of probable cause, there is
need to conduct preliminary investigation. A preliminary
investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the
merits of a case.27 Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a
crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty
thereof.28 It is a means of discovering which person or
persons may be reasonably charged with a crime.
The conduct of preliminary investigation is executive in
nature. The Court may not be compelled to pass upon the
correctness of the exercise of the public prosecutorÊs
function unless there is a showing of grave abuse of
discretion or manifest error in his findings.29 Grave
abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.30 The exercise of power must have been done
in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility. It must have been so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of

_______________

26 Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978, 7 April 1993, 221

SCRA 349, 360.
27 Villanueva v. Ople, G.R. No. 165125, 18 November 2005, 475 SCRA
539, 553.
28 Gonzalez v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, G.R. No.
164904, 19 October 2007, 537 SCRA 255, 269.
29 Ang v. Lucero, G.R. No. 143169, 21 January 2005, 449 SCRA 157,
168.
30 Soria v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 153524-25, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA
339, 345.

642

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty

enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.31
In the present case, the abuse of discretion is patent in
the act of the Secretary of Justice holding that the
contractual relationship forged by the parties was a simple
loan, for in so doing, the Secretary of Justice assumed the
function of the trial judge of calibrating the evidence on
record, done only after a full-blown trial on the merits. The
fact of existence or non-existence of a trust receipt
transaction is evidentiary in nature, the veracity of which
can best be passed upon after trial on the merits, for it is
virtually impossible to ascertain the real nature of the
transaction involved based solely on the self-serving
allegations contained in the opposing partiesÊ pleadings.
Clearly, the Secretary of Justice is not in a competent
position to pass judgment on substantive matters. The
bases of a partyÊs accusation and defenses are better
ventilated at the trial proper than at the preliminary
investigation.
We need not overemphasize that in a preliminary
investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines
whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial. It does not call for the
application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment
of conviction requires after trial on the merits. The
complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond
reasonable doubt. A preliminary investigation does not
require a full and exhaustive presentation of the partiesÊ
evidence.32 Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception
of evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective
claims.
Having said the foregoing, this Court now proceeds to
determine whether probable cause exists for holding
private

_______________

31 Id.
32 Ang v. Lucero, supra note 29.

643

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 643

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

respondents liable for estafa in relation to Presidential

Decree No. 115.
Trust receipt transactions are governed by the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 115 which defines
such a transaction as follows:
 „Section 4. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction.·A trust
receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any
transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as
the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as the
entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title
or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or
instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee
upon the latterÊs execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed
document called a „trust receipt‰ wherein the entrustee binds
himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in
trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods,
documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the
entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to
the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods,
documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not
otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions
specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially
equivalent to any one of the following:
1. In the case of goods or documents, (a) to sell the goods or
procure their sale; or (b) to manufacture or process the goods with
the purpose of ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the case of goods
delivered under trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or
processing before its ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its
title over the goods whether in its original or processed form until
the entrustee has complied fully with his obligation under the trust
receipt; or (c) to load, unload, ship or transship or otherwise deal
with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their sale; or
2. In the case of instruments, a) to sell or procure their sale or
exchange; or b) to deliver them to a principal; or c) to effect the
consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a
depository or register; or d) to effect their presentation, collection or
renewal.
The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a person in the
business of selling goods, documents or instruments for profit who,
at the outset of the transaction, has, as against the buyer, general

644

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

property rights in such goods, documents or instruments, or who

sells the same to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other
interest as security for the payment of the purchase price, does not
constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside the purview and
coverage of this Decree.‰

An entrustee is one having or taking possession of goods,

documents or instruments under a trust receipt
transaction, and any successor in interest of such person
for the purpose of payment specified in the trust receipt
agreement. The entrustee is obliged to (1) hold the goods,
documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and
shall dispose of them strictly in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the trust receipt; (2) receive the proceeds
in trust for the entruster and turn over the same to the
entruster to the extent of the amount owed to the entruster
or as appears on the trust receipt; (3) insure the goods for
their total value against loss from fire, theft, pilferage or
other casualties; (4) keep said goods or the proceeds
therefrom whether in money or whatever form, separate
and capable of identification as property of the entruster;
(5) return the goods, documents or instruments in the
event of non-sale or upon demand of the entruster; and (6)
observe all other terms and conditions of the trust receipt
not contrary to the provisions of the decree.33
The entruster shall be entitled to the proceeds from the
sale of the goods, documents or instruments released under
a trust receipt to the entrustee to the extent of the amount
owed to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt; or
to the return of the goods, documents or instruments in
case of non-sale; and to the enforcement of all other rights
conferred on him in the trust receipt, provided these are
not contrary to the provisions of the document.34 A
violation of any of these undertakings constitutes estafa
defined under Article

_______________

33 Ching v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 164317, 6 February 2006,

481 SCRA 609, 631.
34 Id.

645

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 645

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

315(1)(b) of the Revised Renal Code, as provided by Section

13 of Presidential Decree No. 115 viz.:
 „Section 13. Penalty Clause.·The failure of an entrustee to turn
over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments
covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the
entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods,
documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in
accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the
crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three
hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three
thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known
as the Revised Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed
by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities,
the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the
directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein
responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities
arising from the criminal offense.‰

Apropos thereto, Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Renal

Code punishes estafa committed as follows:

„ARTICLE 315. Swindling (estafa).·Any person who shall

defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall
be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is
over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such
amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor to reclusion temporal, as the case
may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but
does not exceed 12,000 pesos;

646

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to

prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over
200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if
such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four
cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following
means; x x x.‰

As found in the Complaint-Affidavit of petitioner,

private respondents were charged with failing to account
for or turn over to petitioner the merchandise or goods
covered by the trust receipts or the proceeds of the sale
thereof in payment of their obligations thereunder. The
following pieces of evidence adduced from the affidavits
and documents submitted before the City Prosecutor are
sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause, to
wit:
First, the trust receipts35 bearing the genuine signatures
of private respondents; second, the demand letter36 of
petitioner addressed to respondents; and third, the initial
admission by private respondents of the receipt of the
imported goods from petitioner.37
Prescinding from the foregoing, we conclude that there
is ample evidence on record to warrant a finding that there
is a probable cause to warrant the prosecution of private
respondents for estafa. It must be once again stressed that
probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is
enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged.
That private respondents did not sell the goods under
the trust receipt but allowed it to be used by their sister
company is of no moment. The offense punished under
Presidential

_______________

35 Rollo, pp. 119-142.

36 Id., at pp. 186-188.
37 Paragraph h, Counter-Affidavit; CA Rollo, p. 146.

647

VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 647

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Gonzales

Decree No. 115 is in the nature of malum prohibitum. A

mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the sale or the goods,
if not sold, constitutes a criminal offense that causes
 prejudice not only to another, but more to the public
interest.38 Even more incredible is the contention of private
respondents that they did not give much significance to the
documents they signed, considering the enormous value of
the transaction involved. Thus, it is highly improbable to
mistake trust receipt documents for a contract of loan when
the heading thereon printed in bold and legible letters
reads: „Trust Receipts.‰ We are not prejudging this case on
the merits. However, by merely glancing at the documents
submitted by petitioner entitled „Trust Receipts‰ and the
arguments advanced by private respondents, we are
convinced that there is probable cause to file the case and
to hold them for trial.
All told, the evidentiary measure for the propriety of
filing criminal charges has been reduced and liberalized to
a mere probable cause. As implied by the words
themselves, „probable cause‰ is concerned with probability,
not absolute or moral certainty.39
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 30 March 2007
and the Resolution dated 16 October 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91892 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Secretary of Justice is hereby ORDERED to
direct the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila to
forthwith FILE Informations for estafa against private
respondents Oliver T. Yao and Diana T. Yao before the
appropriate court.
SO ORDERED.

_______________

38 Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 345 Phil. 1141, 1174;

280 SCRA 892 (1997).
39 Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao), G.R. No. 166797,
10 July 2007, 527 SCRA 190, 204.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.